I do not recall any specifics, only that people have been banned for being a jerk in the Pit.
He was warned - repeatedly - and rather than make a concerted and visible effort to change his ways, he kept it up at the same rate he had before. The fact that it was compounded over a long period of time simply made it easier - and more irritating - to notice that he had made no effort to change whatsoever.
Again, what you consider the straw and what the Admins consider the straw are different; so be it, but based on all of the information presented, I wholeheartedly agree with their interpretation, and, of course, their ruling takes precedence in such matters.
Collounsbury was before my time but december is exactly who I was thinking of when I posted
Yes all that was part of my point. Now if you clarified the jerk rule we’d have even more people proudly skirting the edge of the law. I don’t know if you watched the whole Alderbaran vs Zenster implied vs direct insults debate I was involved in but that’s exactly what will happen if you clarlify the jerk rule.
So you don’t want anyone being banned for being a jerk? Or only a narrow definiation of being a jerk? If I was a mod and I warned someone about a behavior I would expect them to be on their best behavior for at least a little while after I warned them. Why? It shows a desire to obey the rules of the board. However if they instantly went back to playing in the ‘gray’ areas that means they don’t really want to clean up their act they just want to be as assholish as they want without being banned. Do you really think the mods had some personal desire to see him go? Other then “I’m tired of dealing with this guy he clearly just wants to fuck around until he gets banned. Well wish granted already”
Not to cast aspersions on you, Darkhold, but a while back in this thread I posted a quote of Lynn saying pretty much the same thing. Though with not as much eloquence.
Jeff Olsen my apologies if I stepped on one of your points. I was just responding to Merijeek with stuff off the top of my head any similarities are unintentional.
But that was the fucking PIT goddamit. And you can be “hostile & insulting” in the PIT. In fact, that is one of it’s purposes. This was simply wrong. Of course, that’s just my own damn opinion…
That’s true as long as you have moderators with the power to ban people. So what? The fact that something could happen doesn’t mean it will. I’ve never seen a member in good standing banned without warning, or someone without a history banned for something as ticky-tack as what you suggest. Even if you think banning county was wrong, it was HIS choice to skirt the edge, and he’d still be on thin ice if he was here. Banning was inevitable for him. It’s not that hard to keep yourself out of the position he was in; he decided to be stupid and not listen to warnings.
Perhaps this message board is a (very, very) enlightened monarchy instead of a democracy, but I can deal with it. This thread probably should’ve been closed after the Esprix quote, because I don’t think anybody can put it any better than that.
My whole point was that with the two previously mentioned examples (two raging assholes who had far passed the level of “jerk”) the mods waited to pull the trigger until they had a real rule to nail them with.
Apparently that is no longer the case.
You think defining the “jerk” rule will cause people to dance on the line of demarcation…but it has happened. Constantly. And unless you’re blind you’ve already seen that.
Well, not really. County wasn’t banned because of one PARTICULAR post. He was banned because he was warned several times, and continued to act like a jerk in several more posts. We looked at his warning record, then we looked at his posts SINCE his warnings, and it was apparent to us that he wasn’t going to tone it down. For whatever reason, he apparently thought he could keep on racking up warnings indefinitely. This isn’t just my opinion, it’s the opinion of SEVERAL moderators. So he got banned. Three mod/admins voted for a banning, and possibly more would have voted for it had we waited a day or so for everyone to check in. We’re still discussing this issue in mod email, but so far NOBODY on the mod staff wants him back. Ever.
Darkhold is referring to a thread in which he participated in a debate regarding insults and threats, implied and explicit, in which posts by you and Zenster were held up as examples of the threats or insults that were being debated.
This is a simple statement of fact (although Darkhold would have been clearer had he substituted “threats” for “insults” in the statement you’ve quoted). You are not being insulted, here, so it almost appears that you are looking for a fight where none is offered.
The thread in question was initiated to pit you, but the thread took a different turn (as many do) and the portion of the debate referred to by Darkhold is not a swipe at you. I’m sure we can arrange to insult you if you feel a need for abuse, but that was not the intention of Darkhold’s comment. Goddamnit, Aldebaran, Lynn Said No Such Thing
Sorry I should have said direct vs. implied threats debate. I was heavily involved in it. I drew a parallel between how Zenster was banned for a implied threat and how you were warned and being threatened with being banned. A couple people vigorously disagreed with my analogy. It turned into a hairsplitting argument that went on for pages and pages on what exactly constituted a threat and what didn’t and if there was a difference between conditional threats, direct threats, implied threats, and how each is categorized by the context.
Just wanted to point out that Lynn had said pretty much the same thing.